This should be the year that California voters get a chance to right a historic wrong by repealing a racist, classist provision in the state Constitution that makes it harder to build affordable housing.
The California Legislature voted unanimously to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to repeal Article 34, which requires cities to get voter approval before building “low-cost housing” using public money. Article 34 was adopted in 1950 in the middle of a discriminatory backlash to public housing, and has become a burden to build low-income housing in a state desperate for more affordable housing.
Lawmakers plan to vote on the constitutional amendment in November, but the ballot is increasingly crowded with at least a dozen measures and initiatives, which has increased the cost of political campaigns. Without fighting for statewide public education efforts, Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) said he would withdraw the amendment and wait for a “quieter” election.
It is disappointing that the MPs put the repeal of Article 34 on the back burner, but the decision is understandable. And because the country has adopted workarounds, including the expansive law passed last year to exempt more affordable housing from Article 34, it is not the obstacle it used to be. Still, the legislature should not give up on repeal; it is important to excise this terrible law from the country’s Constitution even if it is difficult.
Winning the vote can be difficult. Californians are still hesitant to give up local control – even as they exacerbate the state’s crippling housing shortage.
Voters have been asked to repeal or weaken Article 34 three times since 1950, and each time they have said no. The last attempt was in 1993. Allen worked with former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti on another repeal attempt in 2020. That one was shelved. The 2022 legislature but then decided to wait until 2024 to have time to raise money for a public education campaign about the ugly history of housing discrimination.
Advocate for repeal found in polls that voters were initially opposed to giving up the right to control what would be built in their communities. But he supported its repeal after realizing the racist roots of Article 34 and the way it led to segregation and inequality.
Real estate industry groups drafted the original initiative in 1950. It was created as a way for residents to maintain “local control” by requiring voter approval for public housing. But the campaign also warns that public housing is a form of socialism and a threat to capitalism, and is driven by “minority pressure groups.” Giving voters the right to veto public housing is another way to prohibit low-income and minority residents from moving into their communities — even when wrapped up in grassroots democracy.
Article 34 prevents thousands of units of public housing development in California. In 1968, voters across the country rejected nearly half of the proposed public housing units, and many other projects were shelved rather than given an uncertain deal. The court then ruled that cities and counties could hold elections to authorize the construction of public housing units, rather than going to voters for each individual project. While it makes it easier to build low-income units, holding elections is still a costly and time-consuming hurdle.
Los Angeles in 2022 LH proposal on the ballot to authorize until 75,000 units new publicly funded housing across the city. It passed with 70% support. Last year Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill Allen 469, which exempts from Article 34 any project that receives a grant or loan from the Housing and Community Development Department of the state or state tax credit. That includes the majority of subsidized low-income housing developments.
Article 34 remains a stain on the country’s Constitution, and lawmakers must continue to work to repeal it. There is another amendment still slated for the November vote — to repeal Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage but was repealed and remains zombie-like in the Constitution. LGBTQ advocates worry that an increasingly conservative Supreme Court could overturn protections for same-sex marriage and revive Proposition 8.
Moreover, there is no good reason to keep Article 34 on the books, only the risk of being abused. It should be removed from the California Constitution. If not in November, then soon.
